Wong v. Night Swim Lane Trust

Opinion

4 * * *

5 Suet F. Wong, Case No. 2:22-cv-01985-APG-DJA

6 Plaintiff, Order 7 v.

8 Night Swim Lane Trust; Bank of America Home Loans; and Sables, LLC, 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Before the Court is Defendant Bank of America Home Loans’ motion to stay discovery 13 pending the outcome of its motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 14). No party responded to the motion. 14 The Court grants the motion because it finds that a stay of discovery is appropriate in this case 15 under the two-step analysis in Scharder v. Wynn, No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 WL 16 4810324, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) and because no party opposes it. 17 The Scharder analysis provides that a Court may grant motions to stay discovery when a 18 dispositive motion is pending if: (1) the dispositive motion can be decided without further 19 discovery; and (2) good cause exists to stay discovery. See Scharder, 2021 WL 481032, at *4. 20 Courts have “wide discretion” in controlling discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 21 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Under Local Rule 7-2(d), the failure of a party to oppose a motion 22 constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion. 23 Here, Bank of America meets both prongs under the Scharder analysis. First, it argues 24 that the pending motion to dismiss does not require any additional discovery because it is based 25 on a question of law. Second, it argues that good cause exists to stay discovery because Bank of 26 America would incur unnecessary costs in conducting discovery on a claim against which it has 27 defended and prevailed numerous times. Finally, no party has opposed the motion. The Court 1 thus finds that a stay would accomplish the objectives of Rule 1: a just, speedy, and inexpensive 2 determination of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 3 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 14) is 5 granted. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the motion to dismiss is not granted in 7 full, the parties shall file a stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order no later than 8 14 days after a decision on the pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is issued by the court. 9 10 DATED: March 27, 2023 11 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27